Topic: Enough to consider a casino scam? - page 13. (Read 3506 times)

The risk of using a new casino is becoming increasingly high daily, as there will still be genuine ones among them, it's clear that one should be so careful these days. I've read a lot on the internet of late, and my conclusion is that most of them are not just there to offer any service, they are just there to scam people and they would have machinated their plans before bringing it on board.

This is not to totally dissuade people from patronising the new ones, but the risk is higher than the well-established ones. To even see many resourceful updates about them online as you have suggested is even hard because they have just started. You would only be seen paid review sites that might only say positive about them because they have been paid.

I'm not certain about this. Even if we carefully read the terms and conditions, it may not make much of a difference if the casino is indeed a scam, as you suggest. After all, a scam casino's main objective is to deceive players, and they will do so even if their rules say otherwise. The 1xbit scam is a prime example of such a fraudulent casino that frequently scams its players. Unfortunately, even if we follow the rules, they may still accuse us of breaking them without providing any proof.


Yes, it's always a good idea to research a casino site thoroughly. This includes looking at reviews from other players, not just reading their terms of use and rules.

There is nothing wrong with visiting a new casino site and testing the site or enjoying the bonus facilities.  But since it is a new site, you must check if there are any scam reports about that site before depositing there.  And in new condition large amount cannot be deposited there. In that case, even if that site is a scam, there is no major loss to be faced. we must keep this in mind. I think this is good strategy

some gamblers come to a new site and try out a new casino just to see how the platform works. or to try to get a bonus that a new casino gives. I also do that sometimes, although I have a casino that I trust more. just in case I just used a small amount of money to try and get some experience in a new place.
but I have proven to myself that when you are comfortable playing at a trusted casino, it is difficult to move to another place. Of course, the assessment of each gambler will always be different.

Gamblers like us help scam casino sites.  Because when we carelessly start depositing without reading the rules of a casino site and lose those funds, we get excited and start calling the casino site a scam. So totally our fault and we are responsible for it.  So before making a deposit at any casino site one should research the site thoroughly.  Of course one should always focus on trusted casinos. and if one fails to recharge any casino site well then he shouldn’t definitely focus on the new site.

Then you mean anyone checking a casino and or even making deposit shouldn't consider all this things i stated? Well if I must say they are to put it in consideration because if they violate the rules them self then you have nothing to worry because you may hold it against the casino despite of them being able change to ToS, alternatively one have to be very careful with some casinos because if they aren't rated then you don't have put much funds.

I don't completely agree with this. While it's true that some terms may benefit the business more than the customer, it's not uncommon for terms of service to include important information about a company's policies and practices that can protect both parties in case of a dispute or misunderstanding. Besides, businesses are required to comply with laws and regulations, which means that some terms must be designed to protect both the business and its customers. Regarding KYC checks, while the terms of service may not provide specific details, they do inform customers that these checks may be required. This is important information to be aware of.


I agree with your points, but it's worth noting that there are reputable casinos that are licensed and regulated by well-known authorities and have a strong track record of treating their customers fairly. Plus, even if the casino is based in some weird place and it's hard to take legal action against them, there are still alternative ways to seek a remedy, such as through industry watchdogs or using a third-party mediators. It's not like you're completely helpless if things go wrong.

Terms of Service mean nothing. They're always written in a way that benefits the business rather then its customers and almost always you'll see a clause that those terms can be changed. In terms of KYC - terms of service would usually have some vague disclosure saying that KYC checks are or may be required but without stating any specific details. So you want get much from reading those.
And that's not to mention that a lot of casinos are either unregulated or operate in exotic jurisdictions so you won't have any option to sue them even if they break their own terms.

Usually the best idea is to first check their KYC Terms of Service before even depositing that least amount a user should deposit in that site because whenever amount is being credit to the casino their story's changes, and even if you try submitting kyc they have no option to be toiling with your details rejecting it and giving you more excuse in the of trying to pass kyc.
So my advise and take on this matter is not to involved any funds first rather passing their kyc's before making deposit.

Indeed, only providing KYC verification in the form of personal data is very fast and the service can receive it immediately, but to get confirmation that the verification data we provide is valid and received, we have to wait a few hours but never more than 24 hours.
Several times I experienced something like this before when providing personal data verification not only on the gambling platform but also on the crypto exchange platform.

Even though it's handled manually, I'm sure it's only 48 hours later, if it exceeds the time limit then we have the right to have suspicions about the casino that we're going to use.
Actually it's not about who gets it fast because on a gambling site there are several members of the service team so they can get it done faster even though it's a manual process.

KYC? Totally annoying in every way. The site is still acting up despite your having uploaded all the necessary paperwork. Frustration? Soaring to new heights! Online casinos are companies, nevertheless. They need to stay away from scams and money laundering. This is strictly business and nothing personal.

To be sure, casinos might improve their know your customer (KYC) procedures. What about state-of-the-art technology for instant identity verification? Or perhaps less esoteric justifications for rejection. To what end? Striking a balance between the needs of casino owners and patrons for safety and entertainment. It's not a slam dunk, but with the appropriate moves, it's not impossible, either.

In this case on my situation if ever there are some new sites which it do really looks good or interesting, then i do simply wait up for some initial tester or players but if ever i cant wait that long then im the one

who would really be testing out with my funds on which i would really be that using up a small amount of money on which i do tend to test out.If ever it do gets out my interest then i would definitely be staying
but if not then i would go back on where i was before. It is really a matter of preference since there are people who dont like this and like that but eventually been liked by others.

We do have different taste when it comes to design and games offered but mostly due to saturation of this market where almost sites are really just that similar when it comes
to their offering and other terms which it is really just that almost a clone but only differ on design.

Yes, I agree with you on this matter mate, and that's why it's very good to make proper research about any casino you intend to gamble on to know if it has good record or bad history of scam stories all over the internet before using. And secondly, if the casino seem to be new, looks legit, with no much information online, I will personally  advise you deposit the least minimum fund, while using that moment to study the casino, instead of depositing huge amount and later after being denied withdrawer, you start to regret.

I think that the KYC identity verification procedure is carried out according to the methodology and by different bodies and organizations in completely different ways. 

Not without reason, many of you, those who have to undergo KYC verification, probably know that different data and documents may be required of them.  There are many options, such as a photo of a passport and a photo of a utility bill with an address and a name and a video image of a face, and so on.  It seems to me that there is no single standard for these checks. 
Now, with so many visits to banks, which are almost always videotaped, your personal data has long been well known to the authorities.  And if there are suspicions of crimes on your part, then at the request of the casino, the data can be provided to it. 
Thus, now the KYC procedure is generally becoming redundant and harmful everywhere, since it only takes time for both the player and the casino administration, which can already receive all the necessary verification data upon its request in case of suspicion. 

I think the real reason for the casino's nit-picking in the event of a payout is only because it is one of the ways to save money in the general pool of funds of the casino itself.  Or simply delaying payments, which is also useful for the balance of pool funds.

But how can you do arbitration with a casino in sports betting? A casino has sports results automatically, there is nothing to look for, everything is to find a way to win and that's it, if the casino makes excuses that it will not pay until the kyc is met, then the requirement is met and if the casino begins to ask for more documents or more requirements is something that it should not do, because if it is a serious casino it can take 24 to 48 hours to approve it, and it will not start to do more verifications, unless it is millions of dollars to that they do a kyc verification with extreme caution, to avoid money laundering.

   -  Sometimes we don't know who is telling the truth or not because both parties can just make up a story that is not true. But even so, they say the fish is caught in one's own mouth.

That's why there is investigation and analysis so that we can know what is really true. Sometimes asking for kyc is just a reason for the casino platform so they can't give you the large amount of money you want to withdraw, often after submitting kyc, suddenly the complainant's account is different.

I was curious while reading what you wrote about not allowing anyone to withdraw higher than the amount of deposit until I realize that it was because of KYC. This might be a very good decision and it's good for anyone to read te rules of the casinos before depositing their money. I know this long before I started gambling because I was trading only, and as a fact then, they (brokers) will not allow you to withdraw just $1 if you did not do the KYC even if you deposit $100,000.

This is a global standard for AML, and if you are not convinced by it, then be sure you use no-KYC casino from the beginning.

People concluded immediately without trying to see what's wrong first or if they are wrong, that is why when doing KYC make sure that it is not blurry or the information is correct because that's onto you and not for the casino, others just take a blurry photo and putting some words that the casino are a scam because your KYC does not approve. Always try or troubleshoot it first on your own but if everything you've tried and still not working then that's the casino's fault.

In my opinion, there are many reasons why a real person who submits perfectly accurate documents for KYC verification will be denied the successful completion of this identity verification.  These may be fuzzy or blurry photos submitted as part of this process.  You can also refuse on the basis of the lack of registration at the place of residence, even if everything is in order with this.  But the migration services allegedly did not enter the necessary data into the relevant population databases.  And so on.  Of course, all this is done only when you want to receive the money won at the casino into your account. 

I once in my life could not pass KYC at all for this reason - I was simply informed with enviable constancy that they could not reliably confirm my identity without explanation at all.  And the support generally stopped responding to my requests, and then to my indignation. True, it was a long time ago. 
But I think the practice of not accepting KYC continues. 
After all, this is the preservation of money on the casino accounts due to the actual "freezing" of the accounts of individual customers.  A small, but still savings for the pool of casino funds. 
So if you are going to withdraw money from a deposit to your account, you must always be potentially ready for trouble.

In this case I would definitely choose a trusted casino site first. Because a trusted casino site will never cheat you like this. Because trusted casino platform will never discredit their platform for this $8000. And if this happens to me by mistake, I will present it in the main thread of the platform with proof.
Bonuses are different. By creating an account you deposited money there for bonus but did not receive the bonus in this case it cannot be declared a scam in advance. First look at their rules and regulations, if you make a mistake with any of the rules then it's your/my failure. But till date I have not deposited money on any platform for bonus.

The problem your close had may have been within the time limit. He could not deposit the money within that specified time due to which he did not get the bonus. Or suppose he was asked to deposit $20 but the fee was deducted from the wallet at the time of sending so there might have been less than $20 due to which he didn't get the bonus.